Skip to main content

Full text of "Rapid Population Growth Consequences And Policy Implications"

See other formats

Effect of Diverting Family Planning Budget into Education or Defense, Various Countries
Ceylon          India          Korea          Pakistan          Taiwan          Singapore
Days of education that could be bought with family planning budget3						
1965	n.a.	n.a.	3	n.a.	1	n.a.
1966	n.a.	5	4	8	n.a.	n.a.
1967	2.5	9	4	7	n.a.	1
1968	n.a.	n.a.	7	n.a.	1	1
Percent by which number of children in school could be raised if the family planning budget were allocated to education
1965              n.a.              n.a.              1.3                n.a.                 0.5                  n.a.
1966              n.a.                2.2             1.7                3.6                 n.a.                  n.a.
1967               1.1                4.1             1.7                3.0                 n.a.                  0.4
1968              n.a.              n.a.              3.0               n.a.                 0.4                   0.5
Percent by which defense budget would be increased if the family planning budget were allocated to defence
1967              n.a.                2.6             1.2                1.8                 n.a.                  n.a.
1968              n.a.              n.a.              1.6                n.a.                 0.2                   0.8
n.a. = not available
aTotal days of education in a year arc assumed to be 220.
Sources: Educational expenditure includes both public and private expenditure in India, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan; for Ceylon and Singapore, only public expenditure is included. For all countries except Singapore and India, educational budgets have had to be projected beyond 1966 from trends in earlier years. Except for Singapore, figures for defense expenditure were derived from (58).
Data on Family Planning Costs for Korea, Taiwan, and Pakistan have been taken from (59); for India, (60, Nos. 14 and 35); for Singapore, (60, No. 28); and for Ceylon costs are calculated from (61).
However, the current state of rate-of-returns theory with regard to both education and fertility reduction is not such that a government could confidently use it to weigh, even in strictly economic terms, the relative value of an extra million dollars in primary education as against an extra million dollars in rural feeder roads or in an extended network of fieldworkers in family planning programs. A brief discussion of this point is perhaps warranted.
Returns from Education
Rate-of-returns theory, as applied to education, involves a calculation of the discount rate that sets the discounted value of the costs of a certain amount of education equal to the discounted value of the additional futurerea it is 17 percent, having been as high as 30 percent in recent years (57). The very low percentages in Singapore, Taiwan, and Turkey may partly reflect a high standard of public health care, and partly (especially in Singapore and Turkey) the fact that family planning expenditures are still increasing as the programs gain momentum. The high percentage in Korea reflects a remarkably small public health budget rather than a large family planning budget.